Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:17:11 05/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2000 at 11:05:29, blass uri wrote: >On May 22, 2000 at 09:44:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 21, 2000 at 23:40:46, blass uri wrote: >> >>>On May 21, 2000 at 21:19:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On May 21, 2000 at 19:56:01, blass uri wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 21, 2000 at 19:02:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 21, 2000 at 18:49:00, blass uri wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 21, 2000 at 17:02:02, Marcos Christensen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On May 20, 2000 at 07:11:31, Terje Vagle wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>1r6/5kp1/RqQb1p1p/1p1PpP2/1Pp1B3/2P4P/6P1/5K2 b - - >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>After 45. Ra6, Fritz suggests Qe3 for black and evaluates the position as 0,94. >>>>>>>>>It does not seem to find the famous draw-line for Kasparov. >>>>>>>>>10 hours analysis on PIII-600, and 28006383 KN evaluated >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Does any other program find the draw-line? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Regards >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Terje >>>>>>>> I thought that even deeper blue didnt saw the draw! Maybe I'm wrong >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Deeper blue did not see the draw but it does not change the fact that people >>>>>>>expect other programs to be better than deeper blue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I believe that the estimate that program will need 10 years to get to the level >>>>>>>of deeper blue is wrong because deeper blue did serious search errors like not >>>>>>>seeing the draw and the fact that other programs do the same search error is >>>>>>>going to change in the future. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>This will _never_ change. Programs will _always_ have "search errors". I don't >>>>>>think a program will find that draw in the next 10 years. The reason is pretty >>>>>>obvious... to find the quiet queen move deep in the tree means the tree is going >>>>>>to be _huge_ since many other "quiet" (but very useless) moves will be searched. >>>>> >>>>>I know that part of the program can find the draw if you let them to play >>>>>against themselves. >>>>> >>>>>You need only to let programs to play against theirselves them and learn from >>>>>the games in order to find the draw. >>>> >>>>I don't believe this will work. The tree is huge. And _every_ pathway has to >>>>be followed to prove the thing is a draw. Just because two programs start at >>>>the position and end up in a draw does not mean (a) the position really is a >>>>draw; (b) that they will find the draw OTB as who knows if white really puts >>>>up the best resistance based on a bunch of shallow searches tacked on to each >>>>other end-to-end. >>> >>>In the case of the last game after you go forward,backward enough times the >>>evaluation will be draw because of learning. >> >> >>True... but what if it takes only 25,000,000 games to do this? > >No,it takes more than one game but only a few games to do this. > >I remember that I used genius3 to find the draw on p100 and it found all the >right moves for black(with the only exception of Qe3 that was only the next best >move). > >The only case when genius3 had problems to find the best move for black was >after h4 when h5 is the best move but it could see it after some minutes. > >When I found 0.00 evaluation I went back and tried to look in the next best move >for white in previous move and in most of the cases the evaluation of the next >best move was 0.00 so I continued to go back. > >After some games(less than 25,000,000 and I am sure that less than 10) I found >that I cannot improve for white by next best so I was convinced that it is a >draw. Yes, but you are talking about two totally different things. (a) how _you_ used a computer to figure this out; (b) how a computer would figure this out on its own. (b) is _far_ more difficult than (a) to pull off... > >> >> >> >>> >>>White has only a small number of lines when programs believe that it >>>has advantage(otherwise people could not prove by chess programs that it is a >>>draw). >> >> >>No... white has a large number of lines that have to be proven bad one at a >>time... by the time you get way out beyond 30 plies, when you can really only >>search to half of that, you have a _lot_ of tree left to work on. > >more than one line but not a large number of lines (in the first move white only >has two lines Qxd6 and Qd7+ and in almost all the moves if I use next beack I >see a draw evaluation). > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>After going forward and backward enough time programs can learn that it is a >>>draw. >> >> >>Again I agree. But I believe our definitions of "enough" are way different. >>IE I know a person that tried to have crafty solve "wild 7". This is a king >>and three pawns vs king and three pawns ending with a well-known way to force >>a win by white. White has pawns at a2/b2/c2, black has pawns at f7/g7/h7. >>White's king is at d1. Black's king is at e8. White to play and win. He >>played thousands of games. learning by "position" as crafty does it, is hurt >>by something known as "a local maxima" which stifles learning beyond that >>point. This position is way easier to solve than the DB position, yet it seems >>impervious to learning approaches. Ande search. Yet it is so easy for a human, >>once he understands the idea. (Hint: it is all about zugzwang). > >This position is not different and I did not say that it is possible to sole it >by the way of playing and learning. > >Uri The search for this position is shallower than the DB position. After 10-15 moves, it is over, completely... While the DB position still has some difficult to find lines in it.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.